Analysis of The Rape Case: Brzonkala V. Virginia Polytechnic Inst. and State University

Rape by definition of the American Heritage Dictionary is “the crime of forcing a female into sexual intercourse”, while legally and psychologically, rape is viewed as force or threat of force, as well as something being seized or taken away. Ever rarely is rape actually about the pleasure of sex, which is one of the many arguments made in the court case Brzonkala v. Virginia Polytechnic Inst. And State University. This case began with a young woman being raped by two college football players in her Freshman year of Virginia Tech. in 1994.

One night a woman named Christy Brzonkala and a peer were hanging out with two people whom Brzonkala only really knew as football players for the university. Brzonkala claimed that night, the two men raped her multiple times. When Brzonkala reported her rape to her school two months after the occurrence, the school did not report the rape to the police and they did not encourage Brzonkala to further report the crime either (Brzonkala v. Virginia Polytechnic 1997). Virginia Tech ended up holding a hearing in which one of Brzonkala’s rapist openly admitted to forcing sexual intercourse even though Brzonkala said “no” twice. The other rapist formally denied everything but did confirm that his friend had forced Brzonkala into sexual intercourse. This student was dismissed with no further action. The student who admitted to the forced sex was to be suspended for a year, which he later appealed. After appealing this decision passed from Virginia Tech and threatening to sue the university twice, he finally won and was able to return to Virginia Tech the following Fall of 1995, and he would be coming with a full scholarship (Brzonkala v. Virginia Polytechnic 1997).

Brzonkala later began to believe and allege that the Head Football Coach at the time had coordinated some part of the second hearing because of the status of the rapist. This is what gave the rapist the ability to play football the following Fall. After alleging this, Brzonkala decided to not return to Virginia Tech, and to also take legal action against the University as well. Brzonkala argued that she was treated unfairly during many portions of the trial, citing that she was informed she could not provide testimony in the second hearing from the first one, and if she did want to she had to put in an appeal form. Because she was not told in enough time to submit these appeals, she was very unprepared for the hearing, while her alleged rapist was given a generous amount of time to prepare for his second hearing. Brzonkala also stated that she was informed of every action taken during all the hearings of the disciplinary proceedings, but when it came to her rapist returning to school, she was given no warning; she had to learn for herself from a newspaper.

In the December of 1995, Brzonkala formally filed suit against the original two rapists and Virginia Tech. Brzonkala claimed that Virginia Tech violated Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, because of how they handled her rape claims and their failure to punish the rapists in a reasonable manner (Brzonkala v. Virginia Polytechnic 1997). Brzonkala also claimed that her rapists violated Title III of the Violence Against Women Act of 1994 by brutally gang raping her because she is a woman. These cases were dropped and re-examined many times until eventually the court reversed all judgements of lower courts and university hearings, claiming that Brzonkala was within her rights and the university failed to seriously discipline two college football players who were accused of raping another student.